13 September 2003

The Mountaineering Council of Scotland (MCofS) has condemned the attitude of certain Highland Councillors following two crucial votes on Highland Council's response to the proposed Shieldaig hydro scheme. Highland Council has refused to object to the proposed scheme and passed the decision to Scottish Ministers who are the planning authority for applications under the Electricity Act.

MCofS Access and Conservation Officer, Mike Dales, said:

“Highland Councillors hold the future of some of our finest mountain landscapes in their hands and yet they have demonstrated a total disregard for the urgent need to protect the world-famous Torridon Mountains”.

The Highland Council Planning, Development, Europe and Tourism Committee considered the case on August 20th and voted 20 - 8 to reject its own planning officer's advice and not object to the proposed scheme. However, Councillor Basil Dunlop challenged this decision on the grounds that there had been no planning justifications for the committee's decision, and so the full committee of Highland Council looked at the case on September 11th.

On each occasion the Council held a hearing at which the developer, local community councils, Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH), Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) and five objectors, including the MCofS, gave presentations to the Council Committee. At the re-run of the hearing in front of the full Council the vote was much closer, but the Council still opted to vote in favour of the scheme by 32 - 27. An objection from Highland Council would have automatically forced a public inquiry.

The MCofS is concerned that there were still no relevant planning reasons given by those who voted in favour of the proposed scheme. Indeed, in the summing up speeches by councillors the reasons for supporting the proposals included: “it is no big deal if we lose the black throated divers”, “green people are good at creating a situation therefore we can ignore all the objections” and “to the German tourists coming off the ferry at Rosyth this scheme will make no difference whatsoever”.

On the other hand, four councillors spoke forcefully in opposition to the proposed scheme and sub-committee's decision. Councillor Dunlop stated:

“If we support this scheme it sends the wrong message to the Scottish Ministers about our credibility as a planning authority”.

“Given the concerns that our detractors have about our ability as a planning authority, to support this proposed scheme will provide the perfect argument against us”.

“We should pay attention to the number of objectors, many of them have objected for the first time in their lives”.

“We have policies to protect mountains, so we should not ignore them. If we ignore our policies then our EU money will be stopped”.

Speaking after the second hearing, Mike Dales made this statement:

“The attitude of a hard core of Highland Councillors demonstrates that they have no care and understanding of mountain protection, countryside designations and tourism management. It is shocking to hear their comments when discussing a proposed industrial development at the core of the Torridon Mountains, one of our top-drawer mountain areas.”

Mike Dales went on to highlight the consequences Highland Council now face for ignoring the sensible advice of Councillors Dunlop and McFarlane Slack.

“It is frightening to consider that these councillors now have planning responsibilities in the Cairngorms National Park as well as our very best National Scenic Areas. There is an urgent need for Ministers to review the decision-making processes that go on within Highland Council”.

Despite Highland Council allowing this application to proceed, the MCofS is confident that the objections from SNH and SEPA are sufficiently strong, and EU legislation so robust that Ministers will have to call a public inquiry or, preferably, reject the proposals outright and stop the proposed scheme in its tracks. If Ministers were to allow the proposed scheme to go ahead, we believe they would be breaking EU rules and the UK government would be rightly, and heavily, fined for neglecting its conservation responsibilities.

At the first hearing Councillor Macintyre (pictured) said that the views of non-local objectors and his non-indigenous constituents could be ignored. His remarks were taken as racially motivated and he received considerable criticism. At the beginning of the second hearing he apologised unreservedly, but said he was “pointing out a matter of fact”.

The developer at the centre of this planning case is Dundee based Highland Light and Power who are employing Weber Shandwick, a worldwide public relations company, to influence decisions in its favour.

The number of objections received by the Scottish Executive to the proposed scheme was 848, compared to only 6 letters of support.

EDITORS, click here for a copy of the
photograph of Councillor Roy Macintyre.

News of the campaign against this scheme